[ParlTrack]

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1

Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . __________________ 34Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used thereforNo general obligation should be imposed on information society service providers to monitor the works or subject matter which they transmit or store, nor should a general obligation be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating activity that would infringe rights under copyrighted works. Hosting providers should not be held liable as long as they do not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and are not aware of the facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity or information is apparent, pursuent to Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC.

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Emilian PAVEL, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Title IV – Chapter 2 – title

~~Certain uses of protected content by online services~~deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13

Use of protected content by information giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by 1. providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. 2. the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. 3. where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.Article 13 deleted society service providers storing and their users Information society service Member States shall ensure that Member States shall facilitate,

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Emilian PAVEL, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Felix REDA, Lucy ANDERSON, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) The protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC ~~remains essential~~was established to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under Union law. The scope of this protection should be ~~maintained while~~adapted in order to better ensur~~ing~~e that the use of technological measures does not prevent the ~~enjoyment~~users' rights to make use of the exceptions and ~~the~~ limitations established in this Directive, which are particularly relevant in the online environment. Rightholders ~~should have the opportunity~~are often not best placed to ensure this through voluntary measures~~. They should remain free to choose the format and the modalities to~~, because technological protection measures are most commonly put in place by entities other than the rightsholders. All actors in the value chain should provide the beneficiaries of the exceptions and ~~the~~ limitations established in this Directive ~~with the means to benefit from them provided that such means are appropriate. In the absence of voluntary measures,~~, in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU, with the means to benefit from them. Member States should take appropriate measures in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Felix REDA, Lucy ANDERSON, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)

(7 a) In order to ensure that technological measures do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations established in this Directive and in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC or Directive 2012/28/EU, Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be updated in order to take account of the fact that in the marketplace, rightsholders are often unable to make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, because technological protection measures are generally not applied by the rightsholders themselves, but by third party suppliers who provide the content to consumers, such as online marketplaces, some of whom enjoy a dominant market position. The inability of users to make use of their rights under copyright exceptions and limitations is not just having a negative impact on users' fundamental rights, it is also detrimental to rightsholders who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers of digital content, especially when consumers are locked into the products and services offered by that seller through the use of technological measures. It is therefore insufficient to require Member States only to place obligations upon the rightsholders, who are generally unable to remove the technological protection measures put on their works by third parties. In addition, the act of circumventing technological protection measures for the purposes of enjoying exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights needs to be exempted from the general legal protection of effective technological measures enshrined in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Furthermore, the definition of "technological measures" in Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be clarified so as not to include measures which are designed to restrict authorised uses under copyright exceptions and limitations.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15

(15) While distance learning and cross- border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education, as well as organizations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non- commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) An open Internet and free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) The organisational and financial contribution of journalists and publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and ~~further~~ encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital usesnews production.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37

(37) ~~Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity.~~ Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject- matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for i, allowing for diversity and creation of new content, while stimulating the revenues of the creative sector to grow in the digital environment.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1

Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholdeworks uploaded by their users, they should conclude agreements with rightholders that ensure appropriate remuneration for authors, unless they are ~~eligible~~qualified for the liability exemptions provided in Article 14s 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, . Such agreements should take into consideration the interests of authors, performers, all end-users and information society services. To avoid multiple licensing for the use of the same work on the same information society service providers, which would lead to fragmentation of the Digital Single Market, rightholders should offer a single agreement or license covering the ~~Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16)~~relevant copyrighted works and should offer pan- European licence for the use of their work covered by this recital.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2

2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Evelyn REGNER, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2

(2) ‘'text and data mining’' means any automated analytical technique ~~aiming to analyse text and data~~which analyses works and other subject matter in digital form in order to generate information ~~such as~~, including, but not limited to, patterns, trends and correlations;.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4

(4) ‘press publication’ means a fixation of a collection of literary works of a journalistic nature, which may also comprise other works or subject-matter and constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine, having the purpose of providing information related to news or other topics and published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions, made ~~by research organisations~~ in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter ~~to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research~~as long as the body performing these acts has lawful access.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ~~ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.~~prevent or to hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided in paragraph 1

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and ~~research organisation~~beneficiaries to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational facilities, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Member States shall recognise that once a work is in the public domain because the copyright and other related rights therein have expired or never existed, accurate reproductions in full or in part of that work shall not be subject to copyright or related rights.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)

Article 5 a Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights to use photographs, video footage or other images of works permanently placed in public spaces.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11

1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject- matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.Article 11 deleted Protection of press publications concerning digital uses

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1

~~1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3

~~3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title

Use of copyright protected content byuploaded by users of information society service providers ~~storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users~~

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of ~~works or other subject-matter~~copyright protected content uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works o conclude agreements with rightholders, unless they fall under the scope of Articles 12, 13,14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC. User uploads, storing and granting public access to that upload, amount to a single use that shall be covered by one agreement. Rightholders and information society services shall conduct negotiations in good faith. Agreements shall be fair and balanced and take into account the interests of users of information society services. In particular, rightholders shall offer othe~~r subject-matter identified by~~ conclusion of pan-European agreements. The implementation of such agreements shall respect users' right~~hol~~s unders th~~rough the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The serv~~e Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. No obligation shall be imposed on service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor an obligation shall be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. This Article ~~providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when releva~~is without prejudice to the ability of rightholders to request the removal of infringing content in accordance with Directive 2000/31/EC. Member States shall ensure that agreements provide adequate level of transparency, legal certaint,y a~~dequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter~~nd predictability to users, without prejudice to trade and commercial secrets. Where appropriate, reporting shall be conducted under the conditions set out by Directive 2014/26/EU.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that ~~the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available~~end users have the means to communicate effectively with the rightholders who have requested the measures referred to in paragraph 1 in order to challenge the application of those measures such as when they are applied to a use~~rs in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1~~ which falls under a copyright limitation or exception or to public domain material. Services referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be required to disclose the identity of users to rightholders.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or other relevant judicial authority.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Evelyn REGNER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)

Article 13 a Modification to Directive 2001/29/EC Directive 2001/29/EC shall be amended as follows: The following Article shall be added: Article 5(3) bis User Generated Content Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 for the use by natural persons of an existing work or other subject-matter in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter, provided that: (a) the work or other subject-matter has already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) the source, including, if available, the name of the author, is indicated; (c) there is a certain level of originality in the new work. This exception is without prejudice to the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, a~~dequ~~ccurate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Evelyn REGNER, Jytte GUTELAND, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate level of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3

~~3. Member States may decide that the obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance.~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Victor NEGRESCU, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)

Article 15 a Member States shall ensure that contracts include a rights reversion mechanism, allowing authors to terminate a contract in cases of unsatisfactory promotion, remuneration or lack of transparency.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Felix REDA, Lucy ANDERSON, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)

Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 3

(b d) In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, and which are not authorised by national or Union law. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject- matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective."

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Felix REDA, Lucy ANDERSON, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)

Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4

(b e) In Article 6(4), the following subparagraph is added: "The protections provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 shall not apply to acts described in paragraph 1 and 2 whose sole purpose is to enable a user's right to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights outlined in this Directive or in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC Directive 2012/28/EU or Directive ... [this directive], to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned;"

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Activities of Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG related to 2016/0280(COD)

Plenary speeches (2)

Shadow reports (1)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (52)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024